- This topic has 5 voices and 13 replies.
February 5, 2007 at 6:22 pm #560
Patriot ActHomeland Security Act (large file)Military Commissions ActIf these acts have violated or taken away our constitutional rights, how so? What specifically is stated in them to make people think this? I've only read parts of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts and have read most of the Military Commissions Act. All I see in them is, not the violation of OUR rights, but the violation of terrorists' rights. (which they shouldn't have anyway)How does domestic surveillance violate our rights? Are there alternatives to this method in order to recognize and capture individual terorists or terrorist cells?"Bush has suspended habeas corpus and/or posse comitatas" How so? Again, what specifically is stated in these Acts for someone to make these accusations?Martial Law, by definition, is when the military takes control of normal administrations of justice. When is this necessary? When is this acceptable? IMO, when a local or state police force is rendered helpless due to a natural disaster or attack, that's where the military comes in. It happened in New Orleans. Many say it was a bad idea. But facts show otherwise. Fact: The 82nd Airborne evacuated the Dome in 2 days, the 82nd Airborne provided food and medical supplies as well as provided medical personnel or provided for the transportation of medical personnel to and from New Orleans, the 82nd Airborne cleared and secured the flooded downtown areas of New Orleans. All this occured within 2 weeks. How would it have been possible for local authorities to accomplish this without communications, personnel, or transportation? I'm not for removing gun rights, but if the National Guard was fired upon while clearing areas, why is it so bad that they wanted to take everyone's weapons? Why would this not be considered self-defense for National Guard personnel? How is this a bad way, possibly the only way, to maintain order?IMO, too many people think of their own govenment, and in some cases, our own military as the enemy. In severe circumstances, such as a nuclear or biological attack on a major city, there will be no other way to maintain order and to help those trapped or injured without the institution of Martial Law. Why is this considered bad by some? What are the downfalls of such an occurance?Am I naive or not seeing things as I should or, perhaps, do I trust my government too much? (or maybe I should stop watching 24)February 5, 2007 at 6:33 pm #8153
One more question. What are alternative ways to catch terroists that are hiding among us? Do we just let it happen?And, how does the 2nd amendment come in to play here? Most would say that having a citizen militia will take care of things. I'd like to know how a gunowner in Cleveland is going to stop a terrorist cell on Boston from detonating a nuclear bomb?February 5, 2007 at 7:01 pm #8154DonaldBakerParticipant
Sec. 948a. Definitions`In this chapter:`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.`(B) CO-BELLIGERENT- In this paragraph, the term `co-belligerent', with respect to the United States, means any State or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against a common enemy.`(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is--`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.`(4) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:`(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.`(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).`(5) GENEVA CONVENTIONS- The term `Geneva Conventions' means the international conventions signed at Geneva on August 12, 1949.`Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally`(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.`(b) Authority for Military Commissions Under This Chapter- The President is authorized to establish military commissions under this chapter for offenses triable by military commission as provided in this chapter.`(c) Construction of Provisions- The procedures for military commissions set forth in this chapter are based upon the procedures for trial by general courts-martial under chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Chapter 47 of this title does not, by its terms, apply to trial by military commission except as specifically provided in this chapter. The judicial construction and application of that chapter are not binding on military commissions established under this chapter.`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.`(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.`(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.`(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter.`(e) Treatment of Rulings and Precedents- The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not be introduced or considered in any hearing, trial, or other proceeding of a court-martial convened under chapter 47 of this title. The findings, holdings, interpretations, and other precedents of military commissions under this chapter may not form the basis of any holding, decision, or other determination of a court-martial convened under that chapter.`(f) Status of Commissions Under Common Article 3- A military commission established under this chapter is a regularly constituted court, affording all the necessary `judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples' for purposes of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.`Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions`(a) Jurisdiction- A military commission under this chapter shall have jurisdiction to try any offense made punishable by this chapter or the law of war when committed by an alien unlawful enemy combatant before, on, or after September 11, 2001.`(b) Lawful Enemy Combatants- Military commissions under this chapter shall not have jurisdiction over lawful enemy combatants. Lawful enemy combatants who violate the law of war are subject to chapter 47 of this title. Courts-martial established under that chapter shall have jurisdiction to try a lawful enemy combatant for any offense made punishable under this chapter.`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.`(d) Punishments- A military commission under this chapter may, under such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter, including the penalty of death when authorized under this chapter or the law of war.
I find the parts I have emboldened to be very vague and subject to arbitrary interpretations by the military commissions and tribunals. Perhaps I am reading this wrong. If it behooved one of these commissions that the NJO was a subversive unlawful or lawful enemy combatant, I reckon they could put NJO members through this process in order to determine whether they meet the criteria as outlined in the act. Sounds like a good way for the government to illegally search and seize persons whom they think might be enemy combatants....if for nothing else than to harrass. Bush might not do it, but his successors might.February 5, 2007 at 7:27 pm #8155
Bush might not do it, but his successors might.
I don't know. I think there will be enough people screaming if they start messing with gun ownership. No matter what, I think it's only a matter of time before "assault" weapons get banned anyway.
`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command
What's the definition of "a State party" here?February 5, 2007 at 7:48 pm #8156
What's the definition of “a State party” here?
I believe it's simply a party organized within a government. Section 3 seems to suggest this, and Section 4 ("(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT") seems to describe actual terrorists who don't claim to be under any form of government.February 5, 2007 at 8:26 pm #8157DonaldBakerParticipant
I don't see references demarcating “foreign” or “domestic” anywhere in what I have read so far. I'm just uneasy with it and the ambiguity that seems to be layered in the text. I can easily see how the President can invoke executive privileges in his interpretation of this and force a hearing in the Supreme Court “after the fact.” I don't know, we must not be complacent with this and study what the ramifications are surrounding these new powers we've given the President.February 7, 2007 at 6:47 pm #8158
The ramifications of not doing this will be much, much worse. True, we can't be complacent and must study it further, but let's not jump to conclusions or let paranoia of these new laws overtake common sense. Perhaps this is part of the sacrificing we must do for this war. Not so much sacrifice freedoms, but realize that certain actions one takes may cause some concern with the authorities.February 7, 2007 at 9:43 pm #8159
Here's the way I look at it: I'm much more comfortable giving up some privacy rights for the sake of greater security under a Republican in the White House than I am under a Democrat White House. At this point, with Hillary looming on the horizon, perhaps we might be best to jump on the “greater privacy” bandwagon. 😀April 21, 2007 at 6:01 pm #8160
... I think it's only a matter of time before "assault" weapons get banned anyway.What's the definition of "a State party" here?
So, too, what is an "assault" weapon?WallyApril 21, 2007 at 10:09 pm #8161StumpfootParticipant
it's really a silly thing to call them as anything can be deemed an assault weapon.April 21, 2007 at 10:58 pm #8162
it's really a silly thing to call them as anything can be deemed an assault weapon.
Just my point; a number of years ago (the story goes) an ethnic gent in Canada and his wife had a disagreement over how she was going to cook the squirrel that they had in the freezer and, long story short, he brained her with it... result assault charges... hence my story to my students that anything one uses to assault another is an assault weapon.My logic dictates the more important concept is that the focus needs to be on the use of the item rather than the item itself. Cars kill more people than guns every year... how about an assault vehicle ban?Just a thought....WallyApril 21, 2007 at 11:26 pm #8163
Well, I was thinking more along the line of an “assault” weapon being an AK-47 or AR-15 or some other “military style” (I like that little term the Left throws in…ridiculous!) rifle. How is banning them going to make the least bit of difference when it comes to gun violence? Knives, forks, pencils, cigarettes..they're all assault weapons too.April 22, 2007 at 1:42 am #8164
Yes but what I think they would argue that it is the item itself which can lead to greater danger in the same situation. In other words, with the same input you get a greater output. A pencil can be used as a weapon to stab, but it's not going to be as easy to cause as much damage with it as with a knife. A shotgun can be used to kill a person or persons, but it's going to be easier to kill more persons with greater ease with a fully automatic weapon.April 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm #8165
... easier to kill more persons with greater ease with a fully automatic weapon.
True but already illegal to own unless one happens to be a Class 3 dealer or lic. by BATF; GCA '36 I believe. Therefore not a valid consideration unless one is already a criminal. We already have plenty of laws that we don't enforce (or follow unless we are the non-criminals); sorry but this ol' dog (the need for more gun restrictions) doesn't hunt for me.Look at Oklahoma City... fertilizer and diesel; not illegal and no restrictions. If we give up liberty for safety we'll have neither. Many of the things that were going to make us safer after 9-11 haven't done anything except get us used to a more invasive and powerful government... don't look for any wholesale revisions to any of these things if and when the Dems. reoccupy the White House. We the Sheepeolpe of the United States....As the Canadian bumper sticker sez: "I love my Counrty but I fear my Government!" Me too.WallyApril 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm #8166StumpfootParticipant
True, more laws have never made the people safer, if someone wants to break the law, and there are a lot that do, then they will, regardless of the tomes of laws put in to the books. Like I said in another tread, we have to be responsible for our own actions. The only time the law means anything is when men want to obey it, and if that ever hapens then you will have a safe society. But unfortunatly there will always be that faction that doesnt.